Clarke & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Holliday

Clarke & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Holliday

The chairman did not unlawfully delegate decision-making; potential criticisms were not provisional findings but tools for evidence exploration. Disclosure complaints are premature pending engagement with the representations process. Information-sharing restrictions are lawful and do not constitute unfairness. No breach of Article 8 ECHR is established.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: John Clarke; Applicant/claimant: Stephen Henwood; Applicant/claimant: Robert Higgins; Applicant/claimant: Graeme Rankin; Applicant/claimant: Sean Balmer; Respondent/defendant: Steven Holliday; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; Interested Party: Nuclear Decommissioning Authority; Interested Party: Burges Salmon LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up)
Outcome
Permission granted on Ground 1; claim dismissed on merits. Permission refused on Grounds 2, 3, and 4.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Disclosure, Legal Representation, Confidentiality, Article 8 ECHR
Administrative Law Public Law Judicial Review Natural Justice Disclosure Legal Representation Confidentiality Article 8 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Clarke

Applicant/claimant

Stephen Henwood

Applicant/claimant

Robert Higgins

Applicant/claimant

Graeme Rankin

Applicant/claimant

Sean Balmer

Applicant/claimant

Steven Holliday

Respondent/defendant

Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Interested Party

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

Interested Party

Burges Salmon LLP

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chairman unlawfully delegated decision-making functions
  2. 2 Whether there was a failure in disclosure of exculpatory material
  3. 3 Whether information-sharing restrictions at the representations stage were unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The chairman did not unlawfully delegate decision-making; potential criticisms were not provisional findings but tools for evidence exploration. Disclosure complaints are premature pending engagement with the representations process. Information-sharing restrictions are lawful and do not constitute unfairness. No breach of Article 8 ECHR is established.

Court Disposition

Permission granted on Ground 1; claim dismissed on merits. Permission refused on Grounds 2, 3, and 4.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted on Ground 1.
  • Claim dismissed on Ground 1 after substantive consideration.